How do you handle the negro question at re-enactments?

[Ozark Iron John]

This is always a hot topic. As I see it usually brought on by some angry black youth or some mixed-race smarty-pants put up to it by his daddy.

They come on bright eyed and interested looking and then say something hositle like ....

"Southern soldiers fought to enslave black men."

or

"The South was evil and racist."

or some such.

How do you handle that at re-enactments?

I think this is an important subject folks. Something Tactical that we should all know how to do. Handling this situation appropriately may difuse a hostile situation. Handling it inappropriatly, may lead to the end of Civil War Re-enacting in America all together if you know what I mean.

I think you Yankee boys ought to jump in on this matter as well. You all may be called upon to breakup a brawl if we ain't all very careful.

The upcoming 150th Cycle is going to place us all out front and in their faces. Dumbarsed Public School educated idiots with an axe to grind and no since of propriaty and unable to tell right from wrong.

How do you handle the negro question at re-enactments?

[plankmaker]

In my experience it is usually the neo-cornfed revisionist spewing his modern views as taught to him from the SCV big letter book on the Cibbah Wawah that creates the most problems. Based on hearing several of these great educational speaches, I learned:

- Every cornfed battery was commanded by a colonel.

- It was common for a cornfed battery commander (the colonel) to wear a kilt to honor his heritage.

- Everything they had was stolen from the Federals because the southern gubment didn't provide them with anything and they had to whip the Yankees to get what they had.

- Their wimmens stayed with them in camp because the soldiers were afraid to leave them at home because of the vile invading Yankees.

Yeppers, I learned a lot. Them passing out the modern literature at the end was a nice touch as well.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

[Ozark Iron John]

I don't think none of that's helpful at all.

In my experience it is usually the neo-cornfed revisionist spewing his modern views as taught to him from the SCV big letter book on the Cibbah Wawah that creates the most problems. Based on hearing several of these great educational speaches, I learned:

- Every cornfed battery was commanded by a colonel.

- It was common for a cornfed battery commander (the colonel) to wear a kilt to honor his heritage.

- Everything they had was stolen from the Federals because the southern gubment didn't provide them with anything and they had to whip the Yankees to get what they had.

- Their wimmens stayed with them in camp because the soldiers were afraid to leave them at home because of the vile invading Yankees.

Yeppers, I learned a lot. Them passing out the modern literature at the end was a nice touch as well.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

Were you trying to be helpful or were you just spouting off so's we'd all know how smart you are?

["Doc" Nelson]

Alright folks, lets keep this clean. Posts will be deleted, or the entire thread will be closed if comments get out of hand or downright disgraceful. Lets remember the forum rules.

Though I understand your question OIJ, I would let history teach itself. You need to read, read and read . . then, teach the public about history. The last thing we need to do is, come up with our own version of history. One needs to be unbiased, not having any kind of Neo-Confederate views or opinions. That will send the wrong signal, and anger folks quickly.

[Ozark Iron John]

Alright folks, lets keep this clean. Posts will be deleted, or the entire thread will be closed if comments get out of hand or downright disgraceful. Lets remember the forum rules.

Though I understand your question OIJ, I would let history teach itself. You need to read, read and read . . then, teach the public about history. The last thing we need to do is, come up with our own version of history. One needs to be unbiased, not having any kind of Neo-Confederate views or opinions. That will send the wrong signal, and anger folks quickly.

I think that is helpful. Thank you very much.

I'm looking for something a little more tactical Doc. Certainly we all ought to read. I agree whole heartedly.

BUT,

in the confrontation I am anticipating, action is what's going to save the day. We all ought to know how to difuse a hostile situation brought on by a disagreement about the negro question.

Don't you all agree?

Ain't it about to happen? Can't you smell it?

One of these days, a whole slew of young black tuffs is gonna show up and cause trouble. Then I'm gonna show up with my boys and their hickory sticks and before you know it ......

Uncle Sam ain't gonna let us do this no more. Know what I mean?

[FloridaHoosier]

Very valid question, but worded so that its inciting opinions and asking for problems. Be prepared for the quick lock and delete if this doesn't stay civil. For the record, as a Confederate reenactor, I've had more problems with neo-Confederates, Southern Party members, and fellow SCV members giving out opinions than any African-American spectators. The few times I've been asked any question remotely similiar to the one you asked, I've said that racism was rampant on both sides, there were many issues, not just slavery, that instigated war, but we're truly fooling ourselves and the public if we don't recognize slavery as one of the top two or three causes.

["Doc" Nelson]

I think that is helpful. Thank you very much.

I'm looking for something a little more tactical Doc. Certainly we all ought to read. I agree whole heartedly.

BUT,

in the confrontation I am anticipating, action is what's going to save the day. We all ought to know how to difuse a hostile situation brought on by a disagreement about the negro question.

Don't you all agree?

Ain't it about to happen? Can't you smell it?

One of these days, a whole slew of young black tuffs is gonna show up and cause trouble. Then I'm gonna show up with my boys and their hickory sticks and before you know it ......

Uncle Sam ain't gonna let us do this no more. Know what I mean?
I would do just what Ross recommends. You have to be the better person in the situation. Showing up with your "boys and their hickory sticks" just put you in the same category as those "tuffs". Now who's better? Neither of you! You have just stooped down to their level.

[Ozark Iron John]

I think that is helpful. Thank you very much.

I'm looking for something a little more tactical Doc. Certainly we all ought to read. I agree whole heartedly.

BUT,

in the confrontation I am anticipating, action is what's going to save the day. We all ought to know how to difuse a hostile situation brought on by a disagreement about the negro question.

Don't you all agree?

Ain't it about to happen? Can't you smell it?

One of these days, a whole slew of young black tuffs is gonna show up and cause trouble. Then I'm gonna show up with my boys and their hickory sticks and before you know it ......

Uncle Sam ain't gonna let us do this no more. Know what I mean?
I am NOT delibertatley trying to pick a fight.

I used the word, "I'm" to refer to some southern minded guy who just happens to stumble into a difficult situation and makes it worse by his actions.

Some of you more ..... I don't know what minded gentlemen, out to sound off about this thread. They're going to ban me here in a minute or two and alls I'm trying to do is encourage us all to think about this kinda thing BEFRFOE it happens.

And believe me, if you ain't seen it yet, get ready. Its going to happen.

[plankmaker]

Ross,

I agree, racism was all over the place back then. When I see things blow up during a presentation is when someone starts spouting definites that reak of modern propaganda. It is picked up on and turns ugly. Maybe something like this might be of valuable knowledge to pass along. Oh wait, then someone would have to actually read a period reference.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

Richmond Dispatch
Friday morning...........Feb. 1, 1861

Another Abolition stronghold broken up.

Syracuse, N. Y., the stronghold of abolitionism, has turned upon the fanatics at last.-- On Tuesday last a Convention was to have been held there, of which Mrs. Susan B. Anthony was to have been the presiding genius. The people, however, determined that it should not be held. A dispatch says:

Before two o'clock, the hour appointed for opening the Convention in Convention Hall, several hundred of the most influential inhabitants of Syracuse made their appearance in front of the building, and from all the streets and avenues of the city laboring men, lawyers, mechanics, merchants, and representatives of all classes of the community, were seen wending their way to the place of meeting. A number of the smaller dealers closed their places of business to take part in the proceedings, and all were inspired with a determination that this central city, which had been disgraced by the Jerry rescue, and celebrated for its abolition fanaticism, should not to-day be again disgraced. The watch word of the crowd was, "Syracuse must redeem its reputation."

The hall rapidly filled up, and several hundred persons were not able to obtain admission. The crowd within was almost suffocating, and not an inch of room was left unoccupied. At a quarter past two, on motion of Ezra Douner, D. A. Orcutt, Esq., was unanimously chosen Chairman, and James Isdell and Edwin Pierson were appointed to conduct him to his seat.

Mr. Orcutt ascended the platform amid vociferous cheering, and when order was restored made an effective speech. He alluded to the fact that Syracuse had been trampled upon for years by abolitionists, and he was happy to see the people now rise in their might to crush out treason in their midst, and manifest a disposition to save the Central City from further disgrace. He trusted that the Union might yet be preserved, and that his Southern brethren would receive these conservative demonstrations as the olive branches from the North, and be willing to restore the loved and lost in the bright galaxy of States.

Mr. Orcutt's remarks were received with the wildest enthusiasm by the dense crowd of people before him.

At this juncture, Rev. Samuel J. May, Rev. M. E. Strieby, Susan B. Anthony, and several other leading abolitionists, appeared in front of the platform, and each of the masculine agitators in turn attempted to be heard.

Mr. May commenced with: Mr. President, a Convention was called to assemble in this hall by--

Storms of hisses and applause broke out all over the house.

Mr. May.--I arose--

Cries of "Put him out,""We want no abolitionists here," followed with hisses, clapping of hands, and the greatest excitement.

Mr. May attempted again to speak, but was received with such overwhelming and continued bursts of applause, with shouts of "louder,""hear," and a call for the "Star Spangled Banner," that his voice was drowned, and he at length subsided.

Rev. Mr. Strieby next attempted to address the Convention, but with no better success than his predecessor.

Russell R. Lowell said that Mr. Strieby desired to say a few words, but was answered with "No, no, no; abolitionists are played out in this city."

Mr. Strieby continued --Is this freedom of--? (Voices and hisses, with cries of "Put the nigger out.")

Two sets of resolutions were introduced, and among them the following:

Whereas, Our glorious Confederacy is crumbling to pieces, and civil war is staring us in the face, and the chief cause thereof has emanated from unscrupulous abolitionists at the North, who for years past have been preaching treason against the United States Government, and malignantly denouncing the constitutional institutions of the South, and branding our Southern brethren as pirates, instead of cultivating with them friendship and brotherly love: and, whereas, Syracuse has long been the rendezvous of Jerry-rescue traitors, headed by Fred. Douglass, and the depot of underground railroad, marshalled by negro Conguen; and whereas, our city has often been disgraced by treasonable meetings, instituted by these dangerous men and their followers, in which meetings plots have been formed for sowing the seeds of abolitionism and disunionism abroad, which, in common with the action of other abolition meetings held at the North, gave rise to the bloody raid at Harper's Ferry; and whereas, it is the duty of all good citizens of these United States, without distinction of party, to cultivate amicable feelings with and amongst each other, rather than to promote discord and to excite hatred, and believing at this particular juncture of national affairs it is unwise, unjust, and unpatriotic to agitate the question of the abolition of involuntary servitude, and while we are not for abridging the constitutional right of freedom of speech, but on the contrary desire it, and wishing hereby to give, by freedom of speech and of the press, an expression of the sentiments of a large majority of the citizens of the city: Therefore, be it.

Resolved, That it is the almost universally expressed sentiment of this community that they will not in any way assist, abet, or encourage, the attempts of a few persons in our midst to strip up strife between the Northern and Southern portion of our common country, and that they will frown upon, discourage, and by all proper means resist, their attempts to override, annul and evade any portion of the provisions of the Constitution and the laws.

Resolved, That we brand all such persons as fanatical rebels, disloyal to the American flag, the Constitution, the Union and the laws, and we believe them unworthy of a country which cherishes and reveres the memory of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Webster and Clay, and they should not be allowed to hold insurrectionary meetings in our midst.

Resolved, That we hereby tender and accord to our Southern brethren all their constitutional rights, both in the States and in the Territories.

Resolved, That in memory of the past, we will use our best endeavors and all honorable means of securing happiness and prosperity for ourselves and our posterity, and firmly believing in the capabilities of man for self-government, we hope that the sunshine will soon, in undimmed splendor, break through the clouds that now hang darkly over us, and that our national flag, enveloping in its capacious folds the Palmetto and all other State flags, for protection, will be greeted with applause in all portions of the Union, and [ that that ] beautiful national air, the "Star Spangled Banner," will again and again be sung by a joyful and happy people, with emotions of pride and pleasure, from every hill top and savannah, from every mountain, plain and valley of our beloved country.

Mr. Strieby attempted to speak to the resolutions, but the uproar was so great that he could not be heard.

A motion to adopt the resolutions was then put, and carried by acclamation without a dissenting voice, and with repeated cheers.

Patriotic speeches were made by B. Davis Noxon and others.

Moses E. Hart came forward, and spoke briefly, claiming to be a Republican, but in favor of preserving the Union. He said the Abolitionists had long held sway in Syracuse, but their race was run.

Wm. W. Green made a patriotic speech, nearly two hours in length, during which a negro charged him with lying, and the negro was quietly passed through an aperture in the wall into the street.

At seven o'clock this evening an immense concourse of people assembled in front of Convention Hall; but after being assured by the owner of the building that no attempt to hold a session of the Abolition Convention during the evening and that the hall would not be opened, the crowd adjourned to eight o'clock to-morrow morning, and quietly dispersed.

[by telegraph.]

Syracuse,Jan. 30. --The Anti- Slavery Convention met here this morning in Convention Hall. The Rev. M. E. Strieby, of this city, Chairman of the Committee on Resolutions, reported.

At first the attendance was small, but gradually the disorganizers gathered until the hall was filled.

A Mr. Powell attempted to speak, and through the efforts of the police he was heard for some time; but about noon the mob put him down, and got forward one of their number named Luke McKinney, who mounted the platform and harangued, the crowd. A tremendous confusion ensued, and during a brief lull of the tempest Mr. Powell resumed his speech, and after a few remarks the antislavery men claimed that they had carried their point in declaring their sentiments, after which the Convention adjourned sine die.

The mob, not knowing what was done, made a violent assault upon the police, throwing rotten eggs, and in one or two cases exchanging blows; but the house was soon cleared without a serious collision. It is probable that some arrests will be made.

[hanktrent]

Don't you all agree?

Ain't it about to happen? Can't you smell it?

Not really.

One of these days, a whole slew of young black tuffs is gonna show up and cause trouble. Then I'm gonna show up with my boys and their hickory sticks and before you know it ......

I think it's a case of the old saying, if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

If one's body language, tone of voice, etc. is best applied as a hammer, then young black males will certainly look like nails.

Hank Trent
hanktrenk@gmail.com

[Ozark Iron John]

..... and now I'll say this before I get canned.

I think you are trying to be helpful, but I've just been asssailed by several PMs that are threatening to bann me from the forum for attempting to incitge a riot. I ain't attempting to incite a riot. I'm trying to figure out how to stop one.

[indguard]

You have to set the stage for why it was so hard for people to imagine that blacks were equal to whites back then for people today to understand why it was the way it was.

Here is how I start my talk on slavery and race relations…

The way we feel today about slavery and race relations is not the way people thought about it back then. Today we know that race does not determine intelligence, today we know that a whole slew of things determines that, the least of which is race. Today we know that education, medical conditions, and the social setting in which a person grows helps determine their abilities and intelligence. We also know this scientifically. Today we know morally and scientifically that slavery is wrong. But back then it just wasn't as obvious to them as it is to us.

But back then it was very, very different. The culture of race relations stated that blacks were morally and mentally inferior. Society said it, religion often said it, even scientists agreed that it was true. If even science said that blacks were somehow less than whites because of race, you can see how hard it would have been for a white person to think a black person might be their equal.

So, white folks that thought blacks could be equal to whites were very, very unusual in that time period. Everything people of all colors were taught went against equality. But even with all these factors against the idea that blacks were equal to whites, things were just beginning to change at the onset of the civil war.

… and from there I go into whatever more discussion.

WTH
The UncleTodd mess

[Ozark Iron John]

Not really.



I think it's a case of the old saying, if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

If one's body language, tone of voice, etc. is best applied as a hammer, then young black males will certainly look like nails.

Hank Trent
hanktrenk@gmail.com

You missed the point all together Col. Trent. I ain't talking about hammering black nailes / males or whatever.

I'm trying to figure out BEFORE hand how to extricate myself and my young men from a bad situation.

I reckon someone ought to be assigned "Negro Question Detail" or some such at every event. If/when the negro question comes up, we point to that man and say .... "there's the guy you need to talk to sir. I'm just trying to keep these men and horses safe from that artillery."

[Ozark Iron John]

Now this, this is helpful.

You have to set the stage for why it was so hard for people to imagine that blacks were equal to whites back then for people today to understand why it was the way it was.

Here is how I start my talk on slavery and race relations…

The way we feel today about slavery and race relations is not the way people thought about it back then. Today we know that race does not determine intelligence, today we know that a whole slew of things determines that, the least of which is race. Today we know that education, medical conditions, and the social setting in which a person grows helps determine their abilities and intelligence. We also know this scientifically. Today we know morally and scientifically that slavery is wrong. But back then it just wasn't as obvious to them as it is to us.

But back then it was very, very different. The culture of race relations stated that blacks were morally and mentally inferior. Society said it, religion often said it, even scientists agreed that it was true. If even science said that blacks were somehow less than whites because of race, you can see how hard it would have been for a white person to think a black person might be their equal.

So, white folks that thought blacks could be equal to whites were very, very unusual in that time period. Everything people of all colors were taught went against equality. But even with all these factors against the idea that blacks were equal to whites, things were just beginning to change at the onset of the civil war.

… and from there I go into whatever more discussion.

WTH
The UncleTodd mess

I will read this and think about it, but I'm pretty stressed right now. I guess maybe I ain't going to get banned. YET.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In my heresies, the answer is to let history speak for itself first, and then second let the words and comments of the Period speak for themselves.

While all of history is subjective, the closer one can stay to the Period and the further one can stay away from modern politics and revisionism (such as Lost Cause ideologies for example), the better the historical interpetation is.

Having said that, because history is subjective, and different people take different ownership of different and differing versions all wrapepd up in a Modern World of considerations, sensibilities, and political-correctness- that is easier said than done.

I am reminded of a local SCV post that set up across from me at a Civil War show this year. While the signs in effect proclaimed a lack of modern politics and revisionism, the material and presentations (from a post dedicated to Quantrill) was highly, mostly all, passionate modern politics and revisionsim and not much objective history at all.
(Not picking on this, or them, just using it to illustrate the point and the tensions...)

IMHO, while one should perhaps not read too much into the limits of an on-line forum post...

"One of these days, a whole slew of young black tuffs is gonna show up and cause trouble. Then I'm gonna show up with my boys and their hickory sticks and before you know it ......

Uncle Sam ain't gonna let us do this no more. Know what I mean?"

This, whether for discussion, point, style, effect, or provocative value- would appear to subjectively announce the answer to the question in advance.

Others' mileage will vary...

CHS

["Doc" Nelson]

I used the word, "I'm" to refer to some southern minded guy who just happens to stumble into a difficult situation and makes it worse by his actions.
My GGG Grandfather was a Confederate Officer. He fought for the South. Do I express my displeasure with the fact the South lost . . no. Instead, I read and read . . then, I educate others that are ignorant to the real history. Not what's taught in public/private schools . . but real history.

I've have run across more reenactors that are ignorant to actual history than spectators. Yep! that's right. They try to make up their own version of history.

The situation can only turn bad if you allow it to. Mark and Ross have some good info. There was hatred on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Was one more prevalent than the other? We may never know. Yes, there is documentation in history books of many cases. But, the fundamental difficulty with studying history is, not everything is written down. That of which was written down, is only a fraction. Studying the American Civil War is a great period because, we have a lot more documentation than prior periods. The best advice I could offer is, study as much as you can. Read anything and everything (that's reputable). Then, you'll be better prepared to handle a situation such as you asked about.

[yerbyray]

Ross is correct as this can really escalate into another thread that doesn't do much but bend people out of shape.

To answer the original question I mention that 2/3 of southern whites did not own slaves and then I ask the audience why they thought non-slave holders took up arms?

I then try and "break apart" the plantation myths and educate our audience that the average slave holder ( average of 1/3 of the entire southern white population) lived in a log cabin and may have owned about five slaves.

I have the luxury of living in western NC where slavery was not that widespread so I guess I have it much easier than a chap from SC or other large slave state.

If anyone asks why I enlisted it is to protect my brother and stop an invasion.

[2RIV]

Ozark,
While we understand what the point of your post was, you seem very fond of the word "negro". I could see how some might think you are up to no good. Try to step back for a second, before you post a nasty comment, and look at your posts and see how others might take your statements out of context.

Also,
I have never had a mob of angry black males come up to me to discuss race relations during the civil war. I also have never needed an appointed person to handle racial questions in my unit. I think your initial post may speak volumes of your real intent and true feelings. Maybe your attitude, if similar in person to the way I see it from your posts, may be what insights black males to become angry. Just a thought.

To me, the way you keep saying, "The NEGRO question", almost sounds like WWII german propaganda about the "JEWISH question".

These are just my opinions, and I too am looking to critique, not to insight a riot.

[PMB1861]

They're going to ban me here in a minute or two

That sounds like a great idea. We can only hope the Provost follows through...

[harley_davis]

Excellent question actually, and I doubt there is a simple, "one size fits all" P.C. answer. The Original 5th MN Co. C, fought the Dakota Indians at the outset of the hostilities known as the Dakota War of 1862 and so, at some of the events we attend we are asked to tell that story. Although not exactly the same, the intensity of the issue is just as alive to the decendants of the Santee Nation today as the issue you have brought into question.

For us, we insist that all members of the unit that will deal with the public on this issue, to be very well informed on all sides of the issues as possible. No one can ever subscribe to "knowing everything" but IMHO, education of the historian/reenactor is critical, especially when dealing with sensitive issues.

Secondly, in today's world, true First Person terminology would be abhortant to nearly every participant and guest alike. The historian/reenactor must have a good sense of when to step out of a First Person presentation in order to deal with some of these potentially difficult issues.

Thirdly, we find that occassionally someone will have very strong opinions on a specific point and I will to try to learn what source they are using for their assertion, "What proof do you have of this?". This can defuse a potential argument (not always) and it may provide me with an additional learning opportunity.

Lastly, if one finds themselves in a position wherein the guest is increasingly insistant and/or hostile about a certain issue, the historian/reenactor should remove themselves from the situation as quickly as possible. In these extreme situations, you will not change the mind of an individual that is bent on a certain agenda and any further discussion can only go badly.

I believe that if the historian/reenactor knows the subject matter and has documented sources that you can steer a person towards to learn for themselves, then I feel a historian/reenactor is truly providing a good experience in history. Now, it is impractical to carry around a library at an event so providing documentation is probably out of the question if confronted in the field. Still, most persons are reasonable individuals and are truly just trying to learn from the historian/reenactor. There is "one in every crowd" however, and as you point out, this question will probably come up at an event somewhere. I am sure there are many other Forum contributors with great insight on this important subject and I hope this thread stays on the issue.

Respectfully,

[Ozark Iron John]

Thank you sir. I appreciate you kind words, but I am still beset by PMs calling for me to be banned for insulting people.

Some of you all act like you're feelings are so short they're about to be hurt at the drop of a hat.

My God Boys, we're full grown men, on horses with guns and cannons. Somebody's bound to get hurt. You gotta have thick skin to play in this game. Don't be so quick to take offense.

That's what'll cause a bad situation to go sour quick. Especially by you Yankee boys. If/when you all see something like this going down across the way, you ought to come running. And help put a stop to it. Right Quick.


Excellent question actually, and I doubt there is a simple, "one size fits all" P.C. answer. The Original 5th MN Co. C, fought the Dakota Indians at the outset of the hostilities known as the Dakota War of 1862 and so, at some of the events we attend we are asked to tell that story. Although not exactly the same, the intensity of the issue is just as alive to the decendants of the Santee Nation today as the issue you have brought into question.

For us, we insist that all members of the unit that will deal with the public on this issue, to be very well informed on all sides of the issues as possible. No one can ever subscribe to "knowing everything" but IMHO, education of the historian/reenactor is critical, especially when dealing with sensitive issues.

Secondly, in today's world, true First Person terminology would be abhortant to nearly every participant and guest alike. The historian/reenactor must have a good sense of when to step out of a First Person presentation in order to deal with some of these potentially difficult issues.

Thirdly, we find that occassionally someone will have very strong opinions on a specific point and I will to try to learn what source they are using for their assertion, "What proof do you have of this?". This can defuse a potential argument (not always) and it may provide me with an additional learning opportunity.

Lastly, if one finds themselves in a position wherein the guest is increasingly insistant and/or hostile about a certain issue, the historian/reenactor should remove themselves from the situation as quickly as possible. In these extreme situations, you will not change the mind of an individual that is bent on a certain agenda and any further discussion can only go badly.

I believe that if the historian/reenactor knows the subject matter and has documented sources that you can steer a person towards to learn for themselves, then I feel a historian/reenactor is truly providing a good experience in history. Now, it is impractical to carry around a library at an event so providing documentation is probably out of the question if confronted in the field. Still, most persons are reasonable individuals and are truly just trying to learn from the historian/reenactor. There is "one in every crowd" however, and as you point out, this question will probably come up at an event somewhere. I am sure there are many other Forum contributors with great insight on this important subject and I hope this thread stays on the issue.

Respectfully,

[Ozark Iron John]

There you go! Thank you sir.

Ross is correct as this can really escalate into another thread that doesn't do much but bend people out of shape.

To answer the original question I mention that 2/3 of southern whites did not own slaves and then I ask the audience why they thought non-slave holders took up arms?

I then try and "break apart" the plantation myths and educate our audience that the average slave holder ( average of 1/3 of the entire southern white population) lived in a log cabin and may have owned about five slaves.

I have the luxury of living in western NC where slavery was not that widespread so I guess I have it much easier than a chap from SC or other large slave state.

If anyone asks why I enlisted it is to protect my brother and stop an invasion.

Protect my brother and stop an invasion.

I like it.

["Doc" Nelson]

Some of you all act like you're feelings are so short they're about to be hurt at the drop of a hat.
OK, you have to understand something. First, this is not your forum. Hence, there are rules. And, consequences if said rules are not followed. Second, you have to step into the shoes of the other posters on here. Your questions look as if you're trying to justify the Neo-Confederate views/opinions. Coming off with a comment such as "me and my boys showing up with their hickory sticks" . . well, what message does that send to others?

There is nothing wrong with your initial question, per se. Just watch how you word your questions, comments or replies.

[Mint Julep]

I'm trying to figure out BEFORE hand how to extricate myself and my young men from a bad situation.



I recommend you quit the hobby at your first opportunity. It is your only salvation from this horrible "Negro Question" that you so dreadfully fear. I will keep you and yours in my prayers until I am notified that you are indeed safely exited from this hobby.

"Lord, please help this man find his way out of reenacting forever and for good! Amen!"

[Ozark Iron John]

OK, you have to understand something. First, this is not your forum. Hence, there are rules. And, consequences if said rules are not followed. Second, you have to step into the shoes of the other posters on here. Your questions look as if you're trying to justify the Neo-Confederate views/opinions. Coming off with a comment such as "me and my boys showing up with their hickory sticks" . . well, what message does that send to others?

There is nothing wrong with your initial question, per se. Just watch how you word your questions, comments or replies.

Doc, I am trying to bring several mounted troopers in the Trans-Mississippi Theater to the field. Early in the War, we didn't have muskets. We didn't have squirrle rifles. We didn't even have shotguns.

I make 'em carry Hickory Sticks so's they can get use to carrying a weapon and learn how to march/ride in formation.

[Ozark Iron John]

Not really.



I think it's a case of the old saying, if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

If one's body language, tone of voice, etc. is best applied as a hammer, then young black males will certainly look like nails.

Hank Trent
hanktrenk@gmail.com
Hey Sir, it has been brought to my attention that calling you Col. Trent might've been hurtful to you. I meant that as no insult. On the contrary, Colonel is a official/unofficial title often given to gentlemen in my part of the Southland to demonstrate admiration or respect.

I guess you might've taken my remark as "tongue-in-cheeck", but I assure you sir, it was not intended as such.

If you do not like the nickname Colonel Trent, say the word and shall never refer to you in that manner again.

[Ozark Iron John]

I shall sign off now for a while.

I wish you all the very best.

I think this is a good question and we should all think about it. I am pretty much a safety first guy. If you can imagine it, it can happen. We should all spend time contemplating confrontations on the field and how we will deal with them.



This is always a hot topic. As I see it usually brought on by some angry black youth or some mixed-race smarty-pants put up to it by his daddy.

They come on bright eyed and interested looking and then say something hositle like ....

"Southern soldiers fought to enslave black men."

or

"The South was evil and racist."

or some such.

How do you handle that at re-enactments?

I think this is an important subject folks. Something Tactical that we should all know how to do. Handling this situation appropriately may difuse a hostile situation. Handling it inappropriatly, may lead to the end of Civil War Re-enacting in America all together if you know what I mean.

I think you Yankee boys ought to jump in on this matter as well. You all may be called upon to breakup a brawl if we ain't all very careful.

The upcoming 150th Cycle is going to place us all out front and in their faces. Dumbarsed Public School educated idiots with an axe to grind and no since of propriaty and unable to tell right from wrong.

How do you handle the negro question at re-enactments?

[uozumi]

Some things to discuss:
-Why blacks were seen as inferior to the Civil War era person.
* Africa was full of people “running around uncivilized.”
* Blacks appeared dumb—not that they were dumb, but see how smart you are when you do not have access to education, learning opportunities, books.
* Black people spoke with a different dialect which made them appear dumb—yet again, they are just using the English language as they learned it and were not dumb.
* Blacks were never portrayed as having logical thoughts and emotions until Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
- Why Slavery was such a big issue, even to those who did not have slaves.
* The economic standpoint—Slaves were expensive, the average price for a slave was about $450 (about 2 years pay for a soldier) and you have to feed and clothe them and they had a short lifespan.

-Where did slaves come from?
* Although the slave trade had been destroyed by that time, you can bring up the fact that most slaves were West Africans sold to the Americas by other West Africans, normally prisoners of war.
-Who were the first slaves in the Americas, the Native Americans, and why that didn’t work.
-Morality
* Many people, even abolitionists, viewed blacks as animals, similar to humans but not fully human.
*Some owners justified having slaves by pointing out the “inferiority” of blacks and thinking that they were “taking care of them” because they were incapable of taking care of themselves.

-Why the North didn't have slavery.

This is an awesome question. It brings out the complexity of the war the complexity of the time period. If you are doing a 1st person impression, it is interesting because you are portraying someone else, not necessarily your point of view but people may misinterpret this. You could point out the bad as a lot of people did back then such as “an insane negro man tried to rape the daughter of Mr. Coleman who lived at the end of our block. Lincoln will free them and all of **** will break loose, I’m afraid for my daughters,” or something of that sort.

Steph Farra

[79th New York]

Please kill this thread. The initial post clearly is asking about this "Negro question" to get favorable responses and seems to have little interest in seeking intelligent answers.

As I see it usually brought on by some angry black youth or some mixed-race smarty-pants put up to it by his daddy.

Are you serious? It breaks my heart that we as a community have people like you in our hobby interacting with the public.

"Dumbarsed Public School educated idiots with an axe to grind and no since of propriaty and unable to tell right from wrong."

I think its safe to say the a the majority of people on this forum are "Dumbarsed Public School educated idiots" I know I am. At the very least, I learned how to spell, form correct sentences, and communicate well with other people.

[hanktrent]

I'm trying to figure out BEFORE hand how to extricate myself and my young men from a bad situation.

I think you missed my point. One prevents the situation by not beginning to engage in conversation with a defensive attitude when talking to "negroes," since one's attitude will often leak through no matter how carefully one tries to hide it. WTH's example of an opening is an excellent one. But, no offense to WTH :D, it seems so obvious.

2RIV (http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141048&postcount=18) sums up the problem nicely, I think.


Hey Sir, it has been brought to my attention that calling you Col. Trent might've been hurtful to you.

Just for the record, I didn't make any complaint.

I just figured it had to do with the fact I was wearing a white suit in my avatar, like a stereotypical Kentucky "colonel."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Elevonics]

If and when the question comes up I have already decided what to say. Its simple in my mind. What I am trying to portray is a southern farmer who enlisted to defend not slavery but his home state and land. I have done a lot of research on my family-the four brothers that fought-three died. Not one of the four brothers owned slaves as far as I can tell. I used the census to pretty much verify that, slaves were shown property. My G,G, Gandfather was very young, still lived at home with his parents when he joined up. I'll simply tell the story of my family at that time.

[TheQM]

Ozark John,

If you are looking for a gross over simplification. Yeah, the average Confederate soldier was fighting to protect the institution of slavery. Which is sort of ironic, since the average Federal soldier was fighting to protect the Union. Most of the Yankees had little interest in ending slavery, at least in the States where it already existed.

I would suggest you read the Ordinance of Succession of the various Confederate States. Most of them mention the need to protect their "Peculiar" Institutions as a reason for leaving the Union. Other than slavery, I can't imagine what other peculiar institution they were talking about.

I would also suggest you read "What This Cruel War Was Over" by Chandra Manning. The book discusses the soldier's attitude toward the War and slavery, in their own words.

Sort of interesting, the attitude of a good many Federal soldiers toward slavery and Black people, in general, changed as the War went on.

[Bill_Cross]

I think y'all have been taken in by a troll.

If not, then I second Joe Smotherman's prayer.

Sweet Jesus, this is TWICE IN ONE YEAR Joe and I have found common ground on an issue.

Unsettling. ;)

[NCfighter]

I second that. Please kill this thread.
All in favor say "I"